That is why economy keeps coming to the forefront in this discussion. Fractional reserve interest is a jewish phenomena and purely capitalist. It allows for money to be made on speculation. Money to be made on money itself.

There must be profit in banking, otherwise smart educated people would not become bankers and banks would fail due to poor management.

Of course the state could subsidize them just like the yeoman farmer of yore.

Hundreds of thousands of small banks to service the millions of agrararian workers. A model of misplaced resources and inefficency. There would be no need for social programs or big government, because there would be no money for ANY central government.

Perhaps this is what anarchists have in mind? Deliberately inefficent input and financial markets in order to stifle economic growth.

There must be profit in banking, otherwise smart educated people would not become bankers and banks would fail due to poor management.

Of course the state could subsidize them just like the yeoman farmer of yore.

Hundreds of thousands of small banks to service the millions of agrararian workers. A model of misplaced resources and inefficency. There would be no need for social programs or big government, because there would be no money for ANY central government.

Perhaps this is what anarchists have in mind? Deliberately inefficient input and financial markets in order to stifle economic growth.

I did not say banks would lend money for nothing. I said banks could charge a fee on a loan. These fees would of course have to be enough to cover expenses and make a profit, but that profit would be either up to market forces, or govt regulation.

Banks don't just make money by loaning money, they also would be able to charge fees for other services, just as they do now.

inefficient banks would fail, at least in the beginning of the transition, as they should. When bankers adjust to the new circumstances a natural harmony would develop. Also there is really no need for 5 banks on every street. If that were the case your vision would be correct, but this is not 1850, it is 2008, soon to be 2009. We have the technology available to reduce the costs of most all banking transactions. Instead of the abundance of bank branches that we have now there would likely be far fewer branch banks, and in their place we would likely see automated kiosks which would be serviced by internet transactions and contractors such as atms have now. I foresee that in this system there would be more automation and use of technology to streamline banking processes. Where there is a need the technology to service that need will develop. Where there is no need (like having a branch bank on every corner) the technology will remain unchanged.

Regarding stifling economic growth... growth is only necessary when there is a fractional reserve system in place. The growth bubble is necessary to be able to pay both the principle and the accrued interest. When there is no fractional reserve system, economic growth is irrelevant. If the economy grows under that system it is because more is produced and sold/built etc. Not because if we don't keep infusing more growth into the system it will collapse under its own weight.

Look up "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL . Underlying this principle is the implication of a closed system. In a closed system there is an absolute limit on everything, including resources. If the global economic system as a whole is a closed system as TANSTAAFL and Opportunity Cost imply, then growth is ultimately unsustainable, and certainly at some point before that level is reached growth will reach the level of diminishing returns.

Be ye not conformed to the image of the Jewish economic scheme. Break free from Jew think.

There must be profit in banking, otherwise smart educated people would not become bankers and banks would fail due to poor management.

Of course the state could subsidize them just like the yeoman farmer of yore.

Hundreds of thousands of small banks to service the millions of agrararian workers. A model of misplaced resources and inefficency. There would be no need for social programs or big government, because there would be no money for ANY central government.

Perhaps this is what anarchists have in mind? Deliberately inefficent input and financial markets in order to stifle economic growth.

I thought we discussed state ownership of the banks earlier in this thread. I'm sure we did. I just don't remember the outcome of that question.

I'll have to go back and find it. I know I won't convince a mod to wipe away all the derailments.

Regarding stifling economic growth... growth is only necessary when there is a fractional reserve system in place. The growth bubble is necessary to be able to pay both the principle and the accrued interest. When there is no fractional reserve system, economic growth is irrelevant. If the economy grows under that system it is because more is produced and sold/built etc. Not because if we don't keep infusing more growth into the system it will collapse under its own weight.

Maybe I'm way off here, but wouldn't the ideal situation be to find a stable point of economic status and maintain it rather than seek for constant growth, which can just as easily lead a nation into recession due to speculation, Capitalism, etc.? Do we really need excessive funding for a government that requires only what it requires? Do we, as a people, require excessive funding which "increases standards of living" through materialism? Let people keep what they make, enjoy what they will, but do we need excess? I don't really think so.

"Stifling" an economy to me can mean two things;
1) Stopping an economy from growing when it needs to, and
2) Stopping an economy from growing out of control.

I have been reading everyones posts.It seems half of you only wanna see what you wanna see and not see it for what true NS is all about.I don't mean to offend anyone but there's way to many cry babies posting about what National Socialist really are about.I'm a SA NS member I come across guys like you all the time,you wanna understand the ideology but the minute you hear or see the word NAZI the first image that comes to mind is a skinhead...Skinheads are the front line guys that protect the SA NS members..Yes you have the ones that ONLY wanna get drunk and smoke weed all day,these guys we don't need in our movement..It only takes one bad apple to make us all look bad..I spend my days defending the rights of white people everywhere, preservation of our white culture and heritage is what I'm about..I'm a NSM SA member,so for the ones that only wanna bitch about what a skinhead is and tell others NO your wrong about the National Socialist get off your ass and show us how it's done..

I was stopped in the hall by my Sociology professor today. I haven't gotten the paper I wrote for him back yet, so I don't know my grade, but he told me that it was very well written and organized, and that it was by far the best paper he's read this year, especially for a Freshman. He said he was afraid I wouldn't have sufficient or accurate sources, but he checked all of them and it was all in order. He told me repeatedly how much he enjoyed reading it.

I was stopped in the hall by my Sociology professor today. I haven't gotten the paper I wrote for him back yet, so I don't know my grade, but he told me that it was very well written and organized, and that it was by far the best paper he's read this year, especially for a Freshman. He said he was afraid I wouldn't have sufficient or accurate sources, but he checked all of them and it was all in order. He told me repeatedly how much he enjoyed reading it.

Hearing that is definitely a source of great satisfaction and relief.

That is good to hear on a personal level between you and your teacher. You have a right to feel satisfaction.

What he says in public will determine if you have the right to feel relief lol.

The best you can hope for would be an open and unbiased discussion regarding your paper's conclusions in class. That probably won't happen. Short of that, I would say no more mention of it would be fine and take his personal acknowledgement as the final answer to it.

That is good to hear on a personal level between you and your teacher. You have a right to feel satisfaction.

What he says in public will determine if you have the right to feel relief lol.

The best you can hope for would be an open and unbiased discussion regarding your paper's conclusions in class. That probably won't happen. Short of that, I would say no more mention of it would be fine and take his personal acknowledgement as the final answer to it.

I have no real reason or intention to bring it up again unless he does first.